Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambition (card game)

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Ambition (card game).

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article.

---

I'm disgusted and shocked that I have to do this.
An impressive effort of vandalism, regarding this page, but spanning large swaths of Wikipedia, has enervated me to the point that I have left Wikipedia in disgust. (See: Talk:Ambition (card game) for details).
The game is totally worthy of mention on Wikipedia, and if someone writes an article, anew, for it in 6 months, a year, I won't object. However, the article has been too many peoples' favorite pissing target for months, and as the inventor of the game that is the subject of the game, I can't let such an embarrassment stand.
My last contribution to Wikipedia is to ask that the article die. A game with so much potential shouldn't be humiliated by others' egotistical belligerence. Exiting with contempt, Mike Church 08:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

• I'm torn on two levels. First of all, my sense of bitterness says that if you're storming off you shouldn't get any particular say in deleting a page. Second of all, the card game is real, does list on some card game sites, etc. In short, the reasons given for deleting this page are ones of personal ego - not ones having to do with any content-based issues. That is not a good reason. So keep. Snowspinner 08:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Not voting, though if it's as notable as you say it is, it deserves to stay; however what other editors have thought was excessive promotion of the article should have no influence on whether the article in itself should remain or not. Dysprosia 08:26, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. This was only ever marginally encyclopedic; and can be revived if and when there is a stable set of rules/some sign it is the new Canasta. Mike has never understood that the only threat to the page, after it survived VfD once, was his own pushiness in trying to get it noticed here. Charles Matthews 08:52, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for the moment. Mike, I hope you'll be back, you've made some excellent contributions. But please, have a think about the spirit of the Wikipedia:autobiography page, which you've again infringed IMO by this listing. The point is, there are some things about which you can't possibly achieve NPOV, because they matter so much to you. This game is a case in point. I think this article should be relisted in a few months' time, when we've all calmed down a bit. It won't do a lot of harm in the meantime. Mike, if you're lurking at that stage, don't contribute to the debate. Let it go. Andrewa 09:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is not your property, and is encyclopedic enough to stand. JFW | T@lk 11:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• No vote. We should keep it (if a high school has banned it, even if for no good reason, that makes it notable for me ;-); but equally there isn't a huge amount about it that couldn't be added once more in a few months if necessary. The Land 13:09, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The policy is that articles are kept or deleted on their merits, not on the whim of their authors or subjects. Examples include Brianism, which continues to be kept against the wishes of Brianism's adherents, and Richard_Genovese, which was repeatedly blanked by its subject. UninvitedCompany 15:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep; if it was worthy of inclusion with Mike here, it's worthy of inclusion with Mike gone. Everyking 16:19, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Sigh. He can't even leave without one last publicity stunt. I don't care if we keep this thrice-cursed article or not. I've already questioned whether it's ever been worthy of inclusion (see a lengthy post on Ambition.) It's borderline for inclusion at best, and certainly no one is going to miss the article if it disappears. On the other hand, the current versin is harmless and NPOV, and without Mike around it'll stay that way. Wiki isn't paper and all that. Isomorphic 16:30, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Iso on Mike's latest (and last?) hissyfit. My conclusion is to reluctantly keep the article, but keep only the links to it which are part of raw lists or came from discussions, and delete all references to Mike in all other articles. Andrewlevine 06:45, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
• First of all, no one owns anything on Wikipedia. Whatever's up there is up for grabs, so to speak. Mike should understand this. My vote: Keep. My unsolicited advice: Mike, you're too close to this so let it go already, and let the wiki community do its thing to make sure this article is fair, non self-serving, and accurate. As far as I can tell, the POV edits have been fine. Secondly, passive-aggressive behavior is unbecoming of a scholar -- Mike you've got to learn to be above it. In the meantime, leave, stay, whatever. Wikipedia will go on. Alcarillo 16:58, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. While I understand the sort of anger personal bitterness can cause (not on Wikipedia, thank god) and the desire to remove all traces you ever had from that community, this article is at least borderline encyclopaedic and is, in my mind, just good enough to keep. Lord Bob 18:46, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to be used for promoting one's dubious inventions. There is no evidence that anyone other than Mr. Church and his few friends know anything of the game. Imagine a specific game of cowboys & indians, with arcane rules invented by a seven year old for his gang: would that have merit enough for an article? No. Mr. Church's game is no different: him, his gang, an adolescent game rather than a child's game ... it just falls below the threshhold, no matter how much Mr. Church pimps it. --Tagishsimon
  • For the record, you're overcompensating a bit for his self-promotion. The game has been published in Nikoli magazine in Japan, as the article states (I confirmed this independently.) A lot of Japanese have now heard of it, and at least a few (those who decided to publish it) must have liked it. Also, I don't think Mike was lying when he said he gets emails about the game. I'm not really arguing to keep, but I want people to know what they're voting on. This isn't an important game, but it's not total vanity, either. Isomorphic 08:01, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: Well put. Let's have a cooling-off period. Andrewa 10:03, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Maximus Rex 18:51, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Googling makes me think it's not very notable--most hits are either to www.pagat.com or to Wikipedia or derivatives thereof. Dpbsmith 20:13, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Isomorphic and Tagishsimon have covered it. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep the article, delete the mass spam linkage. --Starx 05:12, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. But the article needs the ego removed from it. For the record, I tried the game out. My friends didn't like it. Kingturtle 05:52, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
  • What were there comments/criticisms? Can you email them (in approximate summary) to me? I'd be interested in knowing. Thanks. Mike Church 17:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, as I feel all good info should be kept Burgundavia 06:41, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is “acceptable” when it's trim, linked appropriate to the larger context, and Mike leaves it alone in that state. This was all anyone was really asking for (repeatedly / endlessly / hopelessly). Perhaps I can again contribute in peace, without fear of my own watchlist. Sadly, my colleagues use my experience in this debacle as an object lesson for the entire project. :( PilotPrecise 08:32, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, not famous. At least delete ubiquitous referrals to it.

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---